June 30, 2005
We don't need no steenkin recession!
Jerry Bowyer at Tech Central Station makes a good case supporting his claim that our economy is doing well. Here's a taste:
Admittedly, during the past three months the Civilian Labor Force is down a small 46,000, but since Bush's first election it's up 4.4 million and since his big tax cut in May 2003 it's up 1.7 million. It makes sense that when the economy booms, people flow back into the job market, not out of it.
In the process of showing how our economy must be moving upward, he debunks NYT columnist Paul Krugman's assertion that our economy is in ill health.
It's an interesting column.
[Hat tip to Kim du Toit.]
Our Egocentric Politicians
Peggy Noonan hits it, once more, on the proverbial head with this OpinionJournal op-ed about our preening politicians. She, rightfully in my opinion, includes our Supreme Court Justices in that category.
I've reprinted the entire article in the extended entry, if you'd rather not go to the source.
PEGGY NOONAN What's wrong with them? That's what I'm thinking more and more as I watch the news from Washington.
Conceit of Government
Why are our politicians so full of themselves?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
A few weeks ago it was the senators who announced the judicial compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise and nothing wrong with announcements, but the senators who spoke referred to themselves with such flights of vanity and conceit--we're so brave, so farsighted, so high-minded--that it was embarrassing. They patted themselves on the back so hard they looked like a bevy of big breasted pigeons in a mass wing-flap. Little grey feathers and bits of corn came through my TV screen, and I had to sweep up when they were done.
This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."
Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.
Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.
You see the similarities.
There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's résumé, but it is a log-cabin-free zone. So far it also is a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this it always will be.
Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that "it asks me questions."
I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, "Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?" Or perhaps, "Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?"
Even so sober an actor as Bill Frist has gotten into the act. This is the beginning of his Heritage Foundation speech yesterday:
"You might have been wondering these last few months: Why would a doctor take on an issue like the judicial confirmation process? About 10 years ago, I set aside my medical career to run for the Senate. But I didn't set aside my compassion. I didn't set aside my character. And I sure as heck didn't set aside my principles. I got into politics for the same reason I got into medicine. I wanted to help people. And I wanted to heal. I just felt that, in politics, I could help and heal more than one patient at a time"
I admire Bill Frist, but can you imagine George Washington referring in public, or in private for that matter, to his many virtues? In normal America if you have a high character you don't wrestle people to the ground until they acknowledge it. You certainly don't announce it. If you are compassionate, you are compassionate; if others see it, fine. If you hold to principle it will become clear. You don't proclaim these things. You can't, for the same reason that to brag about your modesty is to undercut the truth of the claim.
And there are the Clintons. There are always the Clintons. The man for whom Barack Obama worked so hard in 1992 showed up with his wife this week to take center stage at Billy Graham's last crusade in New York. Billy Graham is a great man. He bears within him deep reservoirs of sweetness, and the reservoirs often overflow. It was embarrassing to see America's two most famous political grifters plop themselves in the first row dressed in telegenic silk and allow themselves to become the focus of sweet words they knew would come.
Why did they feel it right to inject a partisan political component into a spiritual event? Why take advantage of the good nature and generosity of an old hero? Why, after spending their entire adulthoods in public life, have they not developed or at least learned to imitate simple class?
How exactly does it work? How does legitimate self-confidence become wildly inflated self-regard? How does self respect become unblinking conceit? How exactly does one's character become destabilized in Washington?
The Supreme Court this week and last issued many rulings, and though they were on different issues the decisions themselves had at least one thing in common: They seemed to reflect a lack of basic human modesty on the part of many of the justices. Many are famously very old, and they have been together as a court for a very long time. One wonders if they have lost all understanding of how privileged they are to have lifetime sinecures of power and authority. Do they have any sense anymore of common human wisdom, of the normal human arrangements by which Americans live?
Maybe a lot of them aren't bothering to think. Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer in the habit of listening to arguments but only of watching William Rehnquist, and if he nods up and down she knows to vote "no," and if he shakes his head she knows to vote "yes." That might explain some of the lack of seriousness in the decisions. Local government can bulldoze Grandma's house because it's in the way of a future strip mall that will add more to the tax base? The Ten Commandments can appear on public land but not in a courthouse, but Moses, who received the Ten Commandments can appear in the frieze of the House but he'll be sandblasted off the Supreme Court? Or do I have that the other way around?
What are they doing? All this hair splitting, this dithering, this cutting and pasting--all this lack of serious and defining principle. All this vanity.
Perhaps Justice Ginsburg or Justice Stevens will retire soon and write a memoir: Like Jefferson I held to principle, and like Lincoln I often lacked air conditioning. But in my intellectual gifts I've always found myself to be more like Oliver Wendell Holmes . . .
What is in the air there in Washington, what is in the water?
What is wrong with them? This is not a rhetorical question. I think it is unspoken question No. 1 as Americans look at so many of the individuals in our government. What is wrong with them?
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
I wish I could have put it so well . . .
June 29, 2005
Michael Yon and the Deuce-Four
Michael Yon is not a journalist as I had identified him in a previous post. He is an author embedded with the 1-24 Infantry and, as such, he is a war correspondent. He uses a weblog to relate stories, and post pictures, about his experiences in Iraq with the soldiers of the “Deuce-Four.”
In the extended entry, I have compiled excerpts from his most recent posts to give you an idea of his writing style, his motivation, and his experiences. Most importantly, though, they tell a true story about Iraq. These post were made in June, but describe the month of May in Mosul, Iraq with the Deuce-Four.
. . . In all ways, Sam Walton was the corporate equivalent of a muddy-boots General, like George S. Patton.
Colonel David Hackworth, one of the most decorated—and controversial—military leaders in US history, offered nearly identical advice to military leaders. Hackworth said that to really know what's going on, you have to talk to the grunts. You have to walk the line.
I came to Iraq to walk the line. Modesty demands that I qualify this by saying I am not placing myself on a level of greatness of any of these men. I just happen to follow that same principle. Here in Iraq, where so many things are so very different from the way they are reported in the mainstream media, I am actively guided by the advice of these men every step of the way.
I did not come to Iraq with the intention of having someone tell me what the people on the "front lines" were thinking and feeling. I came to see with my own eyes.
And he doesn’t just see it for himself, he shares it with us . . .
Occasionally a journalist passes through for a short embed, but they don't really see much by "drive-by reporting" as this kind of ride-along is called. Since I am not a journalist, and prefer to spend long periods with units, I see things others miss, and sometimes it's impressive stuff. Some of the technology and various forms of intelligence that Deuce-Four uses defies the imagination. I hope that someday the Army clears me to tell the whole story.
Despite the high-tech flourish, most of the genuine intelligence actually comes from detainees who cough up their cellmates like cats choking on hairballs. Another source of reliable intelligence is the local population, who are ever more confident in the effectiveness and staying power of the new government, and increasingly angry with the depravity of the terrorists.
Today, some locals found a very large and well-made shaped-charge (a special type of bomb) buried in a road that could have caused significant damage. The locals didn't just report it; they actually dug it up and removed it from the road! When our guys came by, a kid waved and pointed to the bomb. They may have saved American lives. They definitely sent a powerful message to insurgents who have infested their community.
How’s that for a good example of the Iraqi people teaming with the Coalition troops to defeat the murderous jihadists that have infested their country?
Woven into a series of posts about operations in Mosul, Mr. Yon relates the as-yet-unfinished story of a young Iraqi child named Rhma. I’ve put them together, as follows:
During one late-night sweep in Isla Zeral, Lt. Dan Kearney entered a house where a man asked for help with his five-year-old daughter. She is five years old and her name is Rhma Taha Ahmed and she is afraid of the soldiers, but the father asks the Americans to slow down and look at his daughter. Rhma hid her face while her dad showed her fingers and toes to Lt. Kearney. Her nails were receded and there was blood-blistering, her fingers and toes were tones of red and purple. SFC Joel Lundak called a medic who checked Rhma's vital signs and said she seemed to have a heart condition.
Her father produced papers from a doctor, medical records of a sort, and the interpreter said the documents reported that Rhma has an inoperable congenital heart defect. She will die slowly and painfully. Lt. Kearney calls for Captain Paul Carron, the B company commander, who looks at Rhma and decides to do something. As it happens, a journalist named Sandra Jontz was riding along with Deuce-Four on this mission, and Sandra decides to do something, too. She snaps pictures and takes notes.
[...]
A few hours later the sun rises, and I watch as the doves and sparrows and Black Hawks move across the morning sky. Today is the day Sandra Jontz's story about little Rhma and her heart condition will hit the streets. While a scandal-starved media is about to feast on the 7-course "desecration of the Quran" meal, Sandra Jontz's story is quietly tucked inside the latest edition of the Stars & Stripes. Despite her story being nearly hidden from view, it gets enough spotlight to generate offers of real support. When the story and photos run, medical professionals from coast to coast in America jump on it, offering to fund or provide free treatment.
The good news prompts a return visit to Rhma's house from CPT Paul Carron and his Bravo Company men; only now, instead of being afraid of the soldiers, she is merely shy, and her mother says that when the soldiers are away, Rhma says, "The Americans are going to take care of me."
[...]
Major David Brown, an Army doctor for Deuce-Four, told me that if Rhma still has time, it's running out. Sooner or later, she'll reach a point, beyond which it will be too late to operate. While the clock ticks mercilessly driving her diseased heart muscle closer to failure, her visa paperwork is clogged in the system.
Little Rhma has no idea how many doctors and soldiers are working to help her. At different times, I observe teams of soldiers trying to figure out how to smooth over the bureaucratic snags that keep catching Rhma, preventing her from boarding an airplane to America. Captain Paul Carron writes a plea to Senator Elizabeth Dole. Everybody knows that the obstacles can be cleared if the plea lands in the right hands.
[...]
Yon also relates how our troops value human life. Given their job requires them to be targets for every homicidal terrorist in Iraq; and given that those fanatics have absolutely no regard for the lives of innocents and will shoot, bombard, and explode bombs among them indiscriminately; it is heartwarming (and sobering) to read that our soldiers and marines put themselves at much greater risk because they do not want to hurt innocent men, women, and children. . .
The danger American soldiers face on these raids is exacerbated by their great reluctance to use force when there are civilians around, compounded by the fact that there are children in nearly every home, including the homes of the insurgents. The average American soldier will do just about anything to avoid knowingly hurting a child, and will seldom even use flash-bangs (stun grenades) because of possible effects on children in the closed rooms.
[...]
Benjamin Morton is part of Recon's raiding patrol. He lives directly across from me on base. Everyone calls him "Rat" because he saves everything. Rat moves upstairs, training his rifle above him. Rat's the #1 man, in the most dangerous position. Two enemy men are hiding on the balcony, and one has an automatic weapon with a large drum of ammunition. As Rat comes round the corner, the insurgent sticks the weapon around the balcony corner and fires a long burst of about twenty rounds. Four bullets strike Ben Morton. His buddies come behind him and throw a flash-bang into the room, and return fire, catching a bed ablaze with tracers. They pull Rat out and call for medics. Despite everyone's valiant efforts, Benjamin Morton does not survive his wounds. Had they thrown grenades first, three women and four children would have died alongside the four men who were captured or killed that night. The men were elements of a car bomb cell.
And, finally, the month of May is ended. . .
On the last day of May, Deuce-Four had rounded up 149 suspects, released 16 and kept 133, including the three Algerians who followed the path through Syria. We lost four soldiers; more than a dozen were wounded this month, and now some of us are wondering if the path is cleared for little Rhma. The paperwork has still not cleared. The soldiers continue to do their best to get her to New York. I spoke with Dr. Brown today and asked if there is another country closer where doctors can perform the procedure; he said that doctors in Germany, France and Italy can do it.
Perhaps someone in Rome or Berlin or Paris is listening...
I highly recommend that you go read Michael Yon’s weblog. There is a lot of meat there, he is objective in his observations, and his words ring true . . .
Saddam's Terror Connections
This web page has some interesting information on it.
Perhaps we should not be too hasty in embracing Saddam Hussein as a misunderstood, but basically decent guy . . . /sarcasm
June 28, 2005
Good News from Iraq, Part 30
There is a wealth of information in Chrenkoff's latest installment of Good News from Iraq. You need to go spend some time reading this -- it boggles my mind that so many good things are happening there in the world's efforts to rehabilitate Iraq.
Yes, I said the world's efforts. It appears that the UN and EU are stepping up to the plate to help Iraq get back on it's feet.
Two years and a democratic election later, the international community, deeply sceptical if not hostile at first, is now increasingly coming onboard to help Iraq make the transition to a normal country. While stories of violence dominate the news, these international and domestic efforts to rebuild Iraq after decade[s] of physical and political devastation continue to pick up pace. Below is a selection of past two weeks' worth of stories which, if get reported at all, [are] usually drowned by the tide of negativity.
Go read the whole thing. . . And marvel at the rebirth of a nation.
An American Hero and his heroic Aggie wife
This article does not tell the whole tale of a horribly wounded soldier's fight to survive. It also does not tell the whole tale about his special lady who has dedicated herself to his recovery. But it does tell you about a hero and his heroic wife. And it tells you about Aggie spirit.
“There are so many people from this area who didn’t even know me or Joey who helped us,” said Jayme Bozik, 24. “They’ve showed what the Aggie Spirit is all about.”
It is worth reading.
American History 101
John Fund has an interesting op-ed about this country's need to teach history to its children, and how we are not doing a good job of it. Here's an excerpt:
We are risking something very basic by failing to communicate the basic ideals of America and instead, as historian David McCullough told me, "raising a generation of students who are historically illiterate." But many of those students will eventually become curious, and without a solid grounding in the past, they could easily fall prey to revisionist history, whether it be of the Confederate or Oliver Stone variety.
I've put the entire article in the extended entry for your convenience. It's worth the read.
A few years ago, the National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers and found that while only about four in 10 could name the three branches of the federal government fully six in 10 could name all Three Stooges.
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
The American Story
Why failing to teach history is bad for democracy.
Monday, June 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Everyone agrees we aren't teaching history well, but the direction of reform is controversial. Philadelphia's public schools have just announced they will mandate that all students take an African-American history course in order to graduate from high school. The theory is that the city's 185,000 public school students, two-thirds of whom are black, will finally become aware of their culture and gain self-esteem. Those who are not black will gain an appreciation of black history that is inadequately covered in current general social studies courses.
John Perzel is the GOP speaker of the Pennsylvania House and represents a largely white Philadelphia district. He isn't so sure this is the right approach. "I would like to see [students] master basic reading, writing and arithmetic," he wrote to city officials last week. "Once we have them down pat, I don't care what they teach. . . . They should understand basic American history before we go into African-American history."
Other critics note that schools already put on programs every February for Black History Month, something not done for other ethnic groups. They fear a separate course will diminish student understanding of the overall American experience. Back in the 1960s, novelist James Baldwin testified before Congress that the triumphs and tribulations of black history should be woven into all history courses, rather than segregated. Diane Ravitch, a leading education reformer, agrees that African-American history should be studied but hopes it will be "based on the best scholarship, not ideology or politics."
Dream on. What's more likely to happen is that the creation of a specific African-American history course will fuel demands from other groups, such as Hispanics or gays, for similar history mandates.
What will slip further down a memory hole will be the major reason why it is important for students to study our history: America is an exceptional country in that we were born out of a shared set of ideas--human liberty and opportunity, accompanied by a common set of values. It is often said that while being a Frenchman or German is bound up in ethnicity and ties to the soil, it is possible to become an American by adopting this nation's creed and beliefs.
We are risking something very basic by failing to communicate the basic ideals of America and instead, as historian David McCullough told me, "raising a generation of students who are historically illiterate." But many of those students will eventually become curious, and without a solid grounding in the past, they could easily fall prey to revisionist history, whether it be of the Confederate or Oliver Stone variety.
Yale professor David Gelernter says that "ignorance of history is destroying our judgment." He points to Sen. Dick Durbin's ignorant comment comparing the actions of U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis and Soviets. His remarks went largely unremarked upon by fellow senators until talk radio made them an issue. Future leaders may make even more horrific missteps: a 2003 survey of seniors at the top 55 liberal arts colleges found that over half thought Germany, Italy or Japan had been a U.S. ally in World War II. The concern about historical amnesia crosses the political spectrum. Bill Moyers, the liberal PBS pundit, has said "we Americans seem to know everything about the last 24 hours but very little of the last 60 centuries or the last 60 years."
When Ronald Reagan delivered his 1989 farewell address to the nation, he noted there was "a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells," and he would make no exception. He told his audience that the "one that's been on my mind for some time" was that the country was failing to adequately teach our children the American story and what it represents in the history of the world. "We've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important," he said. "If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I am warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit."
As well-meaning as Philadelphia's attempt to raise the self-esteem of black students may be, we should take time this coming Fourth of July to realize that our failure to teach America's story demands far more strenuous solutions.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
June 27, 2005
MIT Survey 2005
Check out this MIT survey. They are looking for bloggers who have something to say!
What happened to American resolve?
This article, describes a trend that greatly disturbs me. This country does not seem to be the same noble country that fought and defeated the Axis powers during WWII. And that's a shame.
Here's how today's OpinionJournal op-ed on this topic begins (emphasis added):
"It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."--Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.
"And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying and there really is no end in sight."--Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), June 23, 2005, Armed Services Committee hearing.
The polls show the American people are growing pessimistic about Iraq, and no wonder. They are being rallied against the cause by such statesmen as the two above. Six months after they repudiated the insurgency in a historic election, free Iraqis are continuing to make slow but steady political and military gains. Where the terrorists are gaining ground is in Washington, D.C.
And the rest is in the extended entry . . .
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
This is despite tangible, albeit underreported, progress in Iraq. In the political arena, an Iraqi transition government has formed that includes representatives from all ethnic and religious groups. Leading Sunnis who boycotted January's election are now participating both in the parliament and in drafting a new constitution. The Shiite uprising of a year ago has been defeated. The government now has three deadlines to meet: drafting a constitution by August, a referendum on that constitution in October and elections for a permanent government in December.
This political momentum vindicates the decision to hold the January election, despite warnings that it was "going to be ugly" (in Joe Biden's phrase). Some of those who predicted the worst because the Sunnis refused to participate--Mr. Biden, the Hoover Institution's Larry Diamond--are the same people who now say again that disaster looms. Clearly the smart strategy was to move ahead with the vote and show the Sunnis they had to participate if they wanted a role in building the new Iraq. So why should we believe these pessimists now?
As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency. As U.S. and Iraqi military targets have hardened their defenses, the terrorists have turned to larger bombs delivered by suicidal jihadists aimed at softer targets. This drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts.
Insurgencies that have prevailed in history--Algeria, China, Cuba--have all had a large base of popular support. That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.
The trend is in fact toward more civilian cooperation with Iraqi and U.S. security forces. Calls to the military hotline have climbed to 1,700 from 50 in January, according to U.S. commanders, and better intelligence has led to the recent capture of key insurgent leaders, including a top deputy to Musab al-Zarqawi. An Iraqi TV show profiling captured jihadists--"Terrorism in the Hands of Justice"--is a popular hit.
Everyone wishes that Iraqi security forces could be trained faster to replace U.S. troops, and to secure areas from which terrorists have been ousted. But here, too, there has been progress. About 100 Iraqi units are now able to conduct special operations on their own. General George Casey, the Iraq theater commander, says there has not been a single failure of an Iraqi military unit since the election. And new recruits continue to volunteer, even though this makes them terrorist targets.
Regarding Mr. Kennedy's "quagmire" claim, General Casey had this response: "I thought I was fairly clear in what I laid out in my testimony about what's going on in Iraq, that you have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day. Senator, that is not a quagmire."
So why the Washington panic? A large part of it is political. As Democrats see support for the war falling in the polls, the most cynical smell an opening for election gains in 2006. The Republican Hagels, who voted for the war only reluctantly, see another opening to assail the "neo-cons" and get Donald Rumsfeld fired. Still others are merely looking for political cover. Rather than fret (for the TV cameras) about "the "public going south" on the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could do more for the cause by trying to educate Americans and rally their support.
It isn't as if the critics are offering any better strategy for victory. At last week's Senate hearing, Carl Levin's (D., Mich.) brainstorm was that the U.S. set a withdrawal schedule if Iraqis miss their deadline in writing a constitution. But U.S. officials have all stressed to Iraqis how important that deadline is. Mr. Biden delivered a lecture last week that boiled down to letting France train 1,500 Iraqi "gendarmes" and pressing for 5,000 NATO troops to patrol the Syrian border. Both are fine with us, assuming Mr. Biden gets to negotiate with the French, but neither is going to turn the tide of war.
The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country.
President Bush plans to speak about Iraq tomorrow, and we hope he points out that this Beltway panic is hurting the war effort. General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command stressed this point last week. Troop morale, he said, has never been better. But "when I look back here at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I've never seen the lack of confidence greater."
He added that, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that." Mr. Bush will no doubt remind Americans of the stakes in Iraq, but he also needs to point out that defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe our politicians in Washington, D.C. should be issued spines, since they don't seem to have any of their own . . .
An 'Un-documentary"?
This op-ed, by Debbie Schlussel, describes another propoganda piece that masquerades as a documentary. Here is how she opens her article:
Morgan Spurlock got famous from his Oscar-nominated documentary "Super Size Me." He ingested big McDonald's meals three times a day for 30 days, then blamed McDonald's for his bloated body and dodgy health. Now he's using his 30-day premise to get Americans to ingest his version of radical Islam on cable's FX Network.
The rest is in the extended entry.
Last year, I received a request to appear on Mr. Spurlock's new reality show, "30 Days." The episode for which I was being recruited, "Inside an American Muslim Family," airs next Wednesday. It features Mr. Spurlock's childhood friend from West Virginia, David Stacy, spending 30 days "living as a Muslim" in the Detroit area.
While Mr. Spurlock is often referred to as a journalist, and touts "30 Days" as a "documentary," the outcome of the show was decided before production began. A show summary sent to me before taping said: "This process aims to deconstruct common misconceptions and stereotypes. . . . Our character will learn firsthand about Islam and the daily issues that . . . Muslims in America face today. The viewers will witness our character emerge from the immersion situation with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the Muslim-American experience. . . . The potential is great for this program to enlighten a national television audience about the Muslim American experience and increase their compassion, understanding and support."
And indeed, The Wall Street Journal's own Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing about the show last week from a preview tape, noted that Mr. Stacy, by the end of his 30 days, "has become so enlightened that he is pronouncing, if incomprehensibly, on the meaning of Islam, his knowledge of the Quran, the real definition of jihad."
-----
I asked the show's executive producers--all of whom worked on "The Awful Truth With Michael Moore," a cable TV show--how this could be a documentary when they had decided the outcome in advance. Wasn't it possible that Mr. Stacy would come out seeing that there isn't Islamophobia to the extent that the Muslim community claims? Might he see that there is disturbingly strong support in the Detroit-area Islamic community for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah--a fact regularly documented even in the normally pliant Detroit media?
No, the producers told me. "Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims." With this in mind, I agreed to be filmed only with final approval of my appearance, which I never gave. Thus I will not appear in Wednesday's show.
When I met David Stacy, about halfway through his 30-day experience, I was amazed at how uninformed he was. This new "expert" on Islam never heard of Wahhabism--the extremist Sunni strain of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and informs the terrorist-breeding madrassa schools throughout Arab and other Muslim lands. He was unfamiliar with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. He did not believe me when I told him that Hezbollah had murdered hundreds of U.S. Marines and civilians in Beirut and elsewhere. He seemed mystified to learn that President Bush shut down American Islamic charities, like the Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, for funding Hamas and al Qaeda.
In Mr. Stacy, it is clear, Mr. Spurlock had found the perfect tabula rasa. He had also found the perfect "experts" and "key members" of Detroit's Islamic community to educate him. One such was Muqtedar Khan, a professor at Adrian College whose occasional columns in the Detroit News and elsewhere have urged us to understand how devout Muslims can be driven to commit terrorism because of the West's economic alliances.
Mr. Stacy was also taught by Imam Hassan Qazwini of Dearborn's Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America. In November 1998, Mr. Qazwini's mosque hosted Louis Farrakhan, who was introduced as "our dear brother" and "a freedom fighter." I was there and watched Mr. Qazwini cheer on Mr. Farrakhan's attacks on America and his descriptions of Jews as "evil" and "forces of Satan."
When I told Mr. Spurlock's executive producer that I felt David Stacy was, well, a moron, she replied that Imam Husham Al-Husainy, a prominent Dearborn Shia cleric, "said the same thing" and refused to continue teaching him about Islam for the show. The biggest morons, though, will be not Mr. Stacy but the critics and viewers who fall for this supersized phony "documentary."
Ms. Schlussel is Detroit area attorney, columnist and talk show host.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
June 26, 2005
Stoopid Bird
About three weeks ago, early on a Saturday morning (6 AM), my wife and I were sleeping peacefully. Suddenly, there was a thud from our bathroom. Then another, then another. The thuds were accompanied with what seemed to be the rustle of feathers. I finally woke up enough to step into the bathroom and look up at the half-round window we have above the picture window over the bath tub.
There was a bird out there who would periodically fly around and throw himself, head first, into our window!
I stepped outside and he flew away. Shaking my head at this unusual event, I went back inside and crawled back into bed.
Twenty minutes later the thuds returned. That stupid bird was back and was very deliberately flying into the glass window -- time after time. I finally was able to take a brightly colored feather duster (don't laugh), and scare the bird away. It did not return . . .
. . . that day.
The very next morning at 6, the stoopid bird returned and began to throw itself into the glass of our window. I scared it away. It returned at 7. I scared it away again.
Our morning visits by the stoopid bird continued through the week. When we left on vacation, we were certain that the bird could not long survive the beating it was putting itself through every day. And with us gone and not able to stop it from repeatedly slamming itself into the glass head first, we thought it was a goner.
We returned from our vacation late on Wednesday evening, unloaded the car, did some unpacking, and pretty much collapsed in bed.
At 6 AM the next morning, this strange thudding started. It took my lovely lady and I a while to 1) wake up enough to realize that there was a deliberate knocking going on at the bathroom window, and 2) that the STOOPID bird was back! It.was.not.dead.
It was still throwing itself mindlessly at our sealed window! And, three days later, it still greets us in the morning with an enthusiastic pummeling against our window.
Talk about a bird brain . . .
June 25, 2005
Kelo Commentary
"The question answered yesterday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes... During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia distilled the essence of New London's brazen claim: 'You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?... That is the logic of the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer"
-- Washington Post columnist George Will, writing on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding a city's right to seize private property for the benefit of a private developer.
Kelo reverberates
I got this from the OpinionJournal Political Diary.
After celebrating the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to effectively give local governments carte blanche to seize land for private development, some local officials began quickly moving to use their new unlimited authority. Officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, Texas, announced they would move forward with plans to commandeer property owned by two seafood companies in order to allow the construction of a 900-slip private marina. Freeport will even be loaning the developers $6 million to finance the project, and if it fails the town won't be getting its money back. What is certain is that the displacement of the two seafood companies will cost scores of jobs.
The Supreme Court's decision, by a narrow majority with Justice Anthony Kennedy as swing vote, has prompted state Rep. Frank Corte, a Republican from San Antonio, to propose a state constitutional amendment limiting the power to condemn private land for use by other private entities. He says the amendment is now necessary in order to "limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residences in favor of private developers." No doubt there will be similar moves in other states as voters wake up to the realization that the Supreme Court has granted revenue-hungry local governments more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses in order to achieve a "higher use" of the property.
-- John Fund
June 24, 2005
'Takings' Liberties
This op-ed at OpinionJournal.com makes some thought-provoking, yet alarming, points about the Kelo v. City of New London ruling that SCOTUS made yesterday in its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and the rightful use of eminent domain. (I have copied the op-ed in the extended entry for your convenience.)
Bruce Barry at Pith in the Wind has posted his own thoughts in defense of the ruling. And he makes some good points of his own.
SCOTUSblog has some in-depth discussion about the ruling, as well.
Before you make up your mind about this ruling -- which conceivably could threaten the right to own property in this country -- you should check out all of these links, and others that are referenced.
I don't think it is as bad as it appears, but there is some interesting blurring of traditional liberal and conservative lines . . .
The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses. [Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
Kennedy's Vast Domain
The Supreme Court's reverse Robin Hoods.
Friday, June 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
No one disputes that this power of "eminent domain" makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment's "takings clause" also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine "public use" such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners "just compensation" in such cases.
The founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment--which also guarantees "due process" and protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination--because they understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a country where the fruits of one's labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.
That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday's 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for "public use." The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.
"The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Justice Kennedy wrote in concurrence that this could be considered public use because the development plan was "comprehensive" and "meant to address a serious city-wide depression." In other words, local governments can do what they want as long as they can plausibly argue that any kind of public interest will be served.
In his clarifying dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas exposes this logic for the government land grab that it is. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use Clause" with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
And in a separate dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--take from the poor, give to the rich--would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
That prospect helps explain the unusual coalition supporting the property owners in the case, ranging from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. Justice Thomas's opinion cites a wealth of data to that effect.
And it's not just the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment that's undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of "just compensation." Why? Because there is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.
Just compensation may differ substantially from so-called fair market value given the sentimental and other values many of us attach to our homes and other property. Even eager sellers will be hurt by Kelo, since developers will have every incentive to lowball their bids now that they can freely threaten to invoke eminent domain.
So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.
These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.
June 23, 2005
Saddam is Evil
Arthur Chrenkoff has a good post today entitled Humanizing Hussein wherein he quotes a correspondent about how utterly evil Hussein is, yet the media is trying to make him seem like an ordinary guy who is being mistreated by his captors.
I've seen this happening, and it creeps me out that people may actually think he is a decent person. He is a monster, and we should not forget that.
I have copied the entire post into the extended entry, but you may want to go to the source in order to read the comments that the post has generated.
Our frequent correspondent Haider Ajinas writes:
"Recently most of the mainstream media have been promoting a human side to Saddam. Poor old Uncle Saddam, as it were. If this goes on we will soon forget what this man has done. We must not forget the evil this man is and what he has done, lest we wish history to repeat itself."
"Saddam Hussein has not a thread of humanity in him. Every act of his is cold and calculated with an end purpose in mind. That purpose being self-preservation and self-indulgence at the cost of all others and at what ever means possible. Saddam has been a thug since his teenage years. He was implicated and later convicted of attempting to assassinate Iraqi prime minister Abdel-Karim Qassem in 1958. Later he was implicated in the mysterious death of his Baathist predecessor Bakar after Baker retired. Shortly after Saddam became president in 1979, he convened a high level Baathist meeting during which he had close allies and friends escorted out of the meeting room and shot, just for being to close to him. Saddam then proceeded to rule Iraq with an Iron fist. He gassed the Kurds, bombed the Shiites, attacked the Iranians, attacked the Kuwaitis, sponsored terrorist camps, financed terrorists, (one of his personal body guards trained in Afghanistan at an Al Qaeda camp), murdered over 1 million Iraqis, maimed, tortured and raped many more for political reasons, orphaned his grandchildren. The list goes on and on."
I ask you are the above acts those of a human being?
"Saddam is evil personified: a thug, a mass murderer, a rapist, a torturer. He is not a poor old man stuck in isolation, nor does he deserve any sympathy for his current condition. We must never forget what this man and others of his ilk have done to humanity, unless we wish it to happen again and again."
Hitler was an artist and a vegetarian who liked children and dogs. It didn't make him quite human either.
[Copied from Arthur Chrenkoff's 23 June post entitled Humanizing Hussein.]
June 22, 2005
Home Safe and Sound
We are finally home.
We spent an enjoyable and informative afternoon at the Vicksburg National Battlefield.
But now it is late and we're all tired from the journey. I will attempt to do some quality blogging tomorrow.
Good night . . .
June 21, 2005
Homeward Bound
"Men are like an ant on top of a tire. When the tire starts moving they know something important is happening, but they have no clue what it is until it's too late . . ." -- Dear Friend
We got a late start today. We are overnighting west of Birmingham, Alabama, and plan to get home tomorrow. We are all more than ready to get home and sleep in our own beds . . .
The vacation has been wonderful. And it is now time to get back home. I guess this whole family are a bunch of homebodies when you get right down to it!
June 20, 2005
Migration Complete
In case you haven't noticed, I just wanted to point out that I have migrated my Blogger archives to this Munu blog. This was possible due to the preparation and excellent instructions given by Pixy Misa, our blog patron/admin here in Munuvia. I tidied up my Blogger blog some, but my transfer to Munuvia is now complete, so I do not expect to ever return to Blogger.
Final Day on Topsail Island
First thing yesterday morning, we bid adieu to my two brothers and their families. Both of our girls were bummed because all of their cousins were leaving. Now my girls have no one near their ages to play/hang with.
It was very windy on the beach, so we ended up hanging around the beach house most of the day. Supper was superb, though. Aunt M made spagetti and meatballs from scratch. Everyone was quite happy about that, because we can then eat meatball sandwiches for lunch the next day. During dinner, my little one leaned over and whispered that she didn't like Aunt M's spagetti as much as what we have at home. I, personally, am proud that she is learning to be tactful -- last year she would have just blurted it out to the world . . .
Our oldest girl spent a considerable amount of the evening on the cell phone talking to her buddies at home. Our youngest spent her time reading. Both girls are bored, and my lovely lady and I have some things that need to be taken care of, so we will probably leave for home tomorrow morning.
We are somewhat reluctant in this decision because we greatly enjoy the company that we are with now, we love being at the beach, and we are anticipating the arrival of my aunt's husband and son-in-law this afternoon sometime. However, sometimes a person just gets a feeling that it is time to move on -- and that is what I am feeling now.
This morning I am sitting on the deck typing this while listening to a symphony of breeze and surf accompanying the songbirds' melody. I reluctantly left my lovely lady in bed asleep, but did not want to awaken her since it was only 6:30. She will arise soon enough, and I hope we take a walk (we have been eating way too much here!).
After talking it over during our walk this morning, my lovely lady and I decided it is probably best that we leave tomorrow morning. We have had a wonderful week here visiting with family and friends, but it is time to return home.
June 19, 2005
Happy Father's Day
You know who you are.
I just want to wish you a happy Father's Day.
My father is no longer with us, so I'll wish you a happy and pleasurable Father's Day in his stead.
Island Living
Yesterday (Saturday) the dawn was colored in shades of gray -- not only from the cloud cover, but also because my sister, her husband, and their son and daughter were leaving. They had a long road back to Texas, so left before seven. My brother-in-law has to catch a flight this evening, so they stayed here as long as they could.
The whole day was somewhat sad because of the departure of my sister's family, and the imminent departure of both of my brothers and their families (Sunday morning). We all made the best of it, though, and really enjoyed our last day together. One cheerful event was the arrival of my cousin and her infant son.
The clouds cleared out by 2:30, or so, and the water was beautiful in shades of emerald and azure blue. The kids had a blast building sandcastles, skim boarding, and boogey boarding. Body surfing was pretty much out of the question, so I had to content myself with reading and snoozing while working on my suntan (hey, we are on vacation, after all).
Mom and B, my aunt, fixed a great dinner of boiled shrimp and corn on the cob, with a green salad and watermelon. Boy did we stuff ourselves! The daily game of Tripoley followed for most of the adults, while the younger kids watched the Disney Channel and the teenagers watched Jaws in another room.
In the end, we have had a nice reunion with my family. We are going to miss my siblings and their families, but someone has to be here at the beach for a few more days, so we are willing to make that sacrifice . . .
June 18, 2005
Mystery of the Missing Seagulls
Friday, our third day, started slowly with everyone feeling the need to get on the beach. The surf has really died down -- it's as calm as it usually is on Galveston Island. That is not to say that there is no surf, but a sandbar is close off shore and it is damping what little swells there are, so the waves break very close to shore and are not very big. This is not to say that we did not have fun on the beach -- it just did not involve much body surfing. (Do you get the impression that I enjoy body surfing?)
One thing that we noticed when we first got here was that there seems to be a paucity of seagulls. We have all been theorizing about the why and how of this. Here are some of our ideas:
- The birds have been crowded out by the large numbers of blackbirds that seem to be around.
- The seagulls have been hired as extras on the set of the sequel to Finding Nemo.
- We saw one seagull wondering around on foot in some traffic in Surf City the other day, which led us to theorize that the seagulls were dumber this year, and thus getting themselves killed in traffic.
- Most of the seagulls are on an extended vacation to Selinsgrove, PA.
- They are in hiding.
- The seagulls are boycotting Topsail Island because they think the people of the island are not doing enough to protect the Loggerhead turtles.
- They don't care for the seafood here.
- They all went to see the NBA finals.
- They know something that we don't know about the path and ferocity of the next hurricane.
- They find easier pickings at McDonalds.
And what do you think? I'm open to suggestions, so please leave a comment with your theory (be it real or imaginary).
June 17, 2005
Can you tell me what day it is?
Our second day (yesterday) on Topsail Island started with my lovely lady wishing me a good morning. We had talked about greeting the dawn together on the beach, but we overslept by an hour so had to content ourselves with sleepy conversation while we dressed for our morning walk.
After the walk and a shower, we joined the rest of the family for breakfast. Following breakfast, our family beach deployment began. And believe me -- it takes a massive effort to get these 17 people properly attired, applied with sunscreen, equipped with beach chairs - beach umbrellas - beach toys - beach towels - beach etc., marched across the street, over the dune, and onto the beach itself. Fortunately, the adults were not outnumbered very badly (7 kids and 10 adults), and we were able to get all personnel and equipment onto the beach and set up without too much fuss . . .
The rest of the day was one of fun in the sun and general goofing off.
My lovely lady and I had the responsibility for supper last night, and some preparations for dinner were necessary. We decided that the occasion called for Americana all the way, so I grilled out hamburgers, and my lovely lady made the most delicious potato salad. We completed the meal with watermelon and cantaloupe and good company.
The sunset was gorgeous, dinner went well, fun and games ensued . . .
. . . and another day on Topsail drew to a close.
June 16, 2005
Returning to sanity
The first full day (yesterday) at the beach was peaceful and notable (at least for my family) for the unhurried way that we seemed to do things. (We are very much a Type A family -- especially during the school year.)
I woke up early and lay in bed dividing my time between watching my wonderful wife sleeping, and watching the light change from the monotones of darkness to the warm hues of dawn. Both were absolutely beautiful. After my lovely lady awakened, we went for a nice walk along the beach and started our day.
This vacation was choreographed by my Mom, to whom it has been very important to bring all of her kids and their families together -- especially since Dad died. So we find ourselves together here on Topsail Island. One of Mom's sisters, B, is here also, and we are expecting some dear family friends on Friday.
We are in a nice beach house, the island is wonderfully uncrowded, un-touristy, and un-busy. The kids are all enjoying time with their cousins, and their parents are enjoying visiting and catching up with each others' lives. Our Dad may no longer be with us physically, but his memory is still very much alive.
And the body surfing is exhilerating.
We were presented with some wonderful news by my youngest brother, M, and his bride of 15 months, S. They are expecting a child in December. It will be their first child, and Mom's eighth grandchild. We are so excited about this news! And so are M and S. My youngest daughter, the seventh grandchild, was born seven years ago. She is looking forward to no longer being the youngest.
As I wrote earlier, the dial-up connection is pretty poor, so I am typing this in Notepad and uploading it to my blog when I can get connected. I may actually upload pictures eventually, but probably not until we get home. On the other hand, I saw an internet cafe just a few miles down the island from here . . .
June 15, 2005
Topsail Island
Topsail Island is a sleepy little barrier island along the southern coast of North Carolina. It got its name from the way pirates used to lay in wait for unsuspecting merchant ships by hiding behind the island with only their top sails showing.
The Marines have Camp Lejeune and the New River Marine Corps Air Base, so military aircraft fly along Topsail Island on a regular basis. So far, I've seen several Sea Kings and two Cobra gunships.
Evidently there is a lot of history around here. Nearby Sneads Ferry hales back to 1775 when a ferry was established on the primary trade route between Wilmington and places north. Local lore also seems to indicate that the notorious pirate, Blackbeard, sailed his pirate fleet into Topsail Inlet in the early 1700s. And there seems to be some evidence that William Teach had roots in this area.
Topsail has a special place in the history of aviation. A top secret missile test site was established on Topsail Island by the U.S. soon after WWII. Operation Bumblebee was the name of the project which prototyped various jet engines and ultimately developed the ram jet engine. Those engines were tested here on Topsail Island.
And I just like it because it is not a crowded, oceanside tourist trap. In fact, it is proving to be a nice place for me to kick back and relax, enjoy surf and sun, and reconnect with my family.
June 14, 2005
Beach Blanket Bingo
After 2.5 days travelling and spending a good part of yesterday exploring the Great Smoky Mountains, we have arrived at our beach destination in North Carolina.
Time to kick back and relax.
Unfortunately, the internet connection is a sporadic dial-up one, so I may not be able to do much blogging.
I'll keep trying, though.
Cheers . . . !
June 11, 2005
Vacating Spaces
The time has come for our American Geek vacation. We'll limit the geekiness this year, and emphasize the American aspects. We're going to the beach. And along the way we'll make sure to appreciate some of the beauty of our country.
We are travelling to a beach in North Carolina and, along the way, will be spending a day or so doing some light exploring in the Smoky Mountains.
The laptop will come along, but opportunities for blogging may be sparse.
At any rate, please excuse my light blogging for the next two weeks or so. We have been busting our tails for months now, and it is time to get away, enjoy the company of family and dear friends, and experience once more the calming sound of wind and surf. . .
Anti-Subjugator: Thanks America!
This post by Paul Edwards, an Australian who blogs at Anti-Subjugator, is so refreshing, unique, and humerous that it is well worth reading. The subject is "Thanks America", and here's a little glimpse of what is in the post:
And then there's the glorious imperial measurement system that you still cling to, in honour of the glorious King George, long after the rest of the world, including Australia, has metricized, which even caused one of the Mars probes to be smashed to smithereens. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. Ok. Hmmmmm. Let's move on folks, nothing to see here.
I really enjoyed it!
June 10, 2005
Democracy at work in Iraq
Major K., a military blogger stationed in Iraq, gives us a glimpse of the growing pains occurring within the newest democracy on Earth. It is an informative, insiders look at a new way of doing things in Iraq. Go read it.
Friedman and vouchers
Economist Milton Friedman was talking about school vouchers in 1955. Fifty years later vouchers are beginning to become more popular as a means to provide parents with a greater variety of educational choices and, according to recent surveys in areas that promote vouchers, a higher quality education for their kids. Mr. Friedman has published an op-ed at OpinionJournal that reiterates his reasons for vouchers then and now. Here's an excerpt:
Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the gulf between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents to have more control over the schooling of their children, on the one hand, and the adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders and educational administrators to any change that would in any way reduce their control of the educational system.
Registration is required at the site (it's free), but for those who prefer, I've reprinted the article in the extended entry.
Free to Choose
After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Little did I know when I published an article in 1955 on "The Role of Government in Education" that it would lead to my becoming an activist for a major reform in the organization of schooling, and indeed that my wife and I would be led to establish a foundation to promote parental choice. The original article was not a reaction to a perceived deficiency in schooling. The quality of schooling in the United States then was far better than it is now, and both my wife and I were satisfied with the public schools we had attended. My interest was in the philosophy of a free society. Education was the area that I happened to write on early. I then went on to consider other areas as well. The end result was "Capitalism and Freedom," published seven years later with the education article as one chapter.
With respect to education, I pointed out that government was playing three major roles: (1) legislating compulsory schooling, (2) financing schooling, (3) administering schools. I concluded that there was some justification for compulsory schooling and the financing of schooling, but "the actual administration of educational institutions by the government, the 'nationalization,' as it were, of the bulk of the 'education industry' is much more difficult to justify on [free market] or, so far as I can see, on any other grounds." Yet finance and administration "could readily be separated. Governments could require a minimum of schooling financed by giving the parents vouchers redeemable for a given sum per child per year to be spent on purely educational services. . . . Denationalizing schooling," I went on, "would widen the range of choice available to parents. . . . If present public expenditure were made available to parents regardless of where they send their children, a wide variety of schools would spring up to meet the demand. . . . Here, as in other fields, competitive enterprise is likely to be far more efficient in meeting consumer demand than either nationalized enterprises or enterprises run to serve other purposes."
-----
Though the article, and then "Capitalism and Freedom," generated some academic and popular attention at the time, so far as we know no attempts were made to introduce a system of educational vouchers until the Nixon administration, when the Office of Economic Opportunity took up the idea and offered to finance the actual experiments. One result of that initiative was an ambitious attempt to introduce vouchers in the large cities of New Hampshire, which appeared to be headed for success until it was aborted by the opposition of the teachers unions and the educational administrators--one of the first instances of the oppositional role they were destined to play in subsequent decades. Another result was an experiment in California's Alum Rock school system involving a choice of schools within a public system.
What really led to increased interest in vouchers was the deterioration of schooling, dating in particular from 1965 when the National Education Association converted itself from a professional association to a trade union. Concern about the quality of education led to the establishment of the National Commission of Excellence in Education, whose final report, "A Nation at Risk," was published in 1983. It used the following quote from Paul Copperman to dramatize its own conclusion:
"Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents."
"A Nation at Risk" stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series of major attempts to reform the government educational system. These reforms, however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had negligible effect on the quality of the public school system. Though spending per pupil has more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for inflation, students continue to rank low in international comparisons; dropout rates are high; scores on SATs and the like have fallen and remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone functional literacy, in the United States is almost surely lower at the beginning of the 21st century than it was a century earlier. And all this is despite a major increase in real spending per student since "A Nation at Risk" was published.
-----
One result has been experimentation with such alternatives as vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Government voucher programs are in effect in a few places (Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, the District of Columbia); private voucher programs are widespread; tax credits for educational expenses have been adopted in at least three states and tax credit vouchers (tax credits for gifts to scholarship-granting organizations) in three states. In addition, a major legal obstacle to the adoption of vouchers was removed when the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the Cleveland voucher in 2002. However, all of these programs are limited; taken together they cover only a small fraction of all children in the country.
Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the gulf between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents to have more control over the schooling of their children, on the one hand, and the adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders and educational administrators to any change that would in any way reduce their control of the educational system.
We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a statewide voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). In both cases, the initiatives were carefully drawn up, and the voucher sums moderate. In both cases, nine months or so before the election, public opinion polls recorded a sizable majority in favor of the initiative. In addition, of course, there was a sizable group of fervent supporters, whose hopes ran high of finally getting control of their children's schooling. In each case, about six months before the election, the voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly unscrupulous campaign against the initiative. Television ads blared that vouchers would break the budget, whereas in fact they would reduce spending since the proposed voucher was to be only a fraction of what government was spending per student. Teachers were induced to send home with their students misleading propaganda against the initiative. Dirty tricks of every variety were financed from a very deep purse. The result was to convert the initial majority into a landslide defeat. This has also occurred in Washington state, Colorado and Michigan. Opposition like this explains why progress has been so slow in such a good cause.
The good news is that, despite these setbacks, public interest in and support for vouchers and tax credits continues to grow. Legislative proposals to channel government funds directly to students rather than to schools are under consideration in something like 20 states. Sooner or later there will be a breakthrough; we shall get a universal voucher plan in one or more states. When we do, a competitive private educational market serving parents who are free to choose the school they believe best for each child will demonstrate how it can revolutionize schooling.
Mr. Friedman, chairman of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a Nobel laureate in economics.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
June 09, 2005
Dishonorable political behavior
Peggy Noonan has an op-ed about the downward spiral in political rhetoric that is recently being expedited by esteamed (pun intended) personages like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.
This time it is the Democrats, but the Republicans have stooped to harsh rhetoric in the past. It does seem, though, that lately the rhetoric has attained a greater level of vitriol than I have ever witnessed before. I always feel a sense of loss when this kind of thing goes on. It just seems to diminish our nation somehow. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I find it very troubling.
I have reprinted the entire column in the extended entry.
It's well worth the read. Really.
I don't know that Democrats understand how Republicans experience the attacks Democratic leaders make on them. I'm not sure they know how they sound to us.
Seeing Red
Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean rage against Republicans. It's not a winning approach.
Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
In America there is a lot of political integration. Democrats and Republicans are friends. Life forces them to be if they need to be forced, which most don't. They know each other from the office, Little League, school meetings, the neighborhood. Actually America is mostly filled with people who say not "I'm a Democrat" and "I'm a Republican," but "I voted for Bush" and "I like McCain" and "I voted for Kerry." They identify by personal action more than political party, at least in my experience.
Washington is more politically segregated. In Washington, Democrats by and large hang out with Democrats, Republicans with Republicans. This is true in consulting, in think tanks, in journals, in Congress. If you work for a Democratic senator, the office is full of Democrats. The people with whom you share inside jokes and the occasional bitter aside are Democrats. The "neighborhood" in which you go to meetings during your long days is Democratic. The same is true for Republicans.
And it's inevitable. The structure of things decrees it, as does human nature. Like-minded people seek like-minded people for stimulating conversation and more.
So in some key ways in Washington, the most politically engaged individuals in both parties do not understand each other. This expresses itself in certain assumptions. Democrats think Republicans are mean. Republicans know Democrats are the mean party.
-----
Knowing that, let's do a thought experiment. Close your eyes and imagine this.
President Bush is introduced at a great gathering in Topeka, Kan. It is the evening of June 9, 2005. Ruffles and flourishes, "Hail to the Chief," hearty applause from a packed ballroom. Mr. Bush walks to the podium and delivers the following address.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I want to speak this evening about how I see the political landscape. Let me jump right in. The struggle between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is a struggle between good and evil--and we're the good. I hate Democrats. Let's face it, they have never made an honest living in their lives. Who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the United States Senate and undermining our Constitution? They have no shame.
But why would they? They have never been acquainted with the truth. You ever been to a Democratic fundraiser? They all look the same. They all behave the same. They have a dictatorship, and suffer from zeal so extreme they think they have a direct line to heaven. But what would you expect when you have a far left extremist base? We cannot afford more of their leadership. I call on you to help me defeat them!"
Imagine Mr. Bush saying those things, and the crowd roaring with lusty delight. Imagine John McCain saying them for that matter, or any other likely Republican candidate for president, or Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee.
Can you imagine them talking this way? Me neither. Because they wouldn't.
Messrs. Bush, McCain, et al., would find talk like that to be extreme, damaging, desperate. They would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that's not good for the country. I think they would know such talk is unworthy in a leader, or potential leader, of a great democracy. I think they would understand that talk like that is destructive to the ties that bind--and to the speaker's political prospects.
-----
Why don't Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean know this? And what does it mean that they do not know it?
For as you know, the color-coded phrases in the "Bush speech" above come from speeches and statements given by Sen. Clinton and Democratic chairman Dean recently. (Mrs. Clinton's comments are in green and Mr. Dean's in purple, and I changed "right" to "left.")
Clinton is likely the next Democratic nominee for president. Mr. Dean is the head of the Democratic Party. They are important and powerful. They may one day run the country. It is disturbing that they speak as they do.
How do people who are not part of the Democratic base react to their statements? I think something like this: What's wrong with these people? Don't they understand they lower things with their name calling and bitter language? If this is how they feel free to present themselves in public, what will they do and say in private if they ever run the country?
If Mr. Bush ever spoke this way, most Republicans would feel embarrassment. I would be among the legions who would denounce his statement. Democrats are half the country; it is offensive to label them as hateful, it's wrong. Even though we're torn by disagreements, there is an old and unspoken tradition that we're all in this together, we're all citizens together. It is destructive to act against this tradition.
One assumes all the media, especially the MSM, would treat the speech as if it were an epochal event in the Bush presidency, and the beginning of the end. They would say he was unleashing the dark forces of division; they would label his statement as manipulative, malevolent, immature.
And they'd be right.
-----
There is a tradition of political generosity that prevails among the normal people of America, a certain live-and-let-live-ness. That is why Little League games don't break out in fistfights, at least over politics. You don't shun people in the neighborhood because they're Democrats, and you don't inform the Republican in the next cubicle that he is evil, lazy and racist. That just doesn't play in America. There are breaches, exceptions, incidents. We are not angels. But by and large even though we disagree with each other, and even if we come to dislike each other, we maintain, for reasons both moral and practical, decorum. Civility. We keep a lid on it. We don't lower it to the level of invective. We don't by nature seek to divide.
When you have been in Washington long enough and have become consumed by your place in the political struggle, you can lose sight of the American arrangement. You can become harsh and shrill. You can become the sort of person who would start the fight at the Little League game. You can become--how might a columnist, as opposed to a political leader, put it?--a jackass. But not a funny one, a destructive one, the type that can knock down the barn it took the farmer years to build.
The comportment of Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean is actually not worthy of America. Their statements suggest they are in no way equal to the country they seek to lead. And something tells me that sooner or later America is going to tell them. But in a generous, mature and fair-minded way.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
It looks like Bolton is right
Remember all of the rhetoric about John Bolton trying to coerce the intelligence community into producing evidence that Syria had WMD? Our Democrat Senators were heavily implying that Bolton was out to fabricate evidence against Syria.
Well, guess what? Turns out he could well be right . . .
I've reprinted the entire OpinionJournal article in the extended entry. It is well worth the read . . .
Bolton and Syria
Missile tests show he was right about Damascus.
Monday, June 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
On Thursday, Samir Kassir, a prominent Lebanese newspaper columnist and long-time critic of Syria, was murdered in Beirut when a bomb exploded under the hood of his car. The following day, we learned that Syria had test-fired three missiles the previous week--one Scud B, with a range of 190 miles, and two Scud Ds, with ranges of 400 miles. The missiles, of North Korean design, are configured to carry chemical warheads, according to Israeli security sources; they can hit any target in Israel along with U.S. military installations in Turkey, Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
There are several lessons here, but one of them is this: John Bolton was right.
President Bush's nominee to be Ambassador to the U.N. has been assailed because he pushed U.S. intelligence services for evidence of Syrian work on weapons of mass destruction. As Senator Chris Dodd put it, Mr. Bolton "was trying to convince people that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria, at a time when there was no evidence of that."
We're glad somebody was on the Syrian case. A ballistic missile test is provocative enough, but missiles configured to carry chemical warheads are not the act of a country that wants to change along with the rest of the Middle East. The firing of the missiles--the first such "test" in four years--came just two days before Lebanon held its first round of parliamentary elections since Syrian troops quit the country in April.
Together with the murder of Mr. Kassir--widely suspected to be the work of Syrian intelligence agents or their Lebanese allies--the firing sends a stark message that Damascus intends to continue meddling in Lebanon. There is also the threat Syria continues to pose to Israel through its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, among other terrorist groups, or the recent arrest by Syria of human-rights activist Mohammad Radun and other political dissidents.
-----
Then there is Syrian meddling in Iraq. We have long known the Syrians have provided safe haven, and possibly logistical and financial assistance, for the former Baathist leaders now running the insurgency. The point was confirmed in February when, under U.S. pressure, Damascus handed over Saddam Hussein's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan to Iraqi custody. More recently, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld felt sufficiently strongly about the Assad clan's cozy relationship with the jihadists to issue a warning to "neighboring countries" against harboring archterrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
Which brings us back to Mr. Bolton, who has been denied a Senate confirmation vote because, among other charges, he challenged accepted intelligence wisdom. In the Syrian case, Senator Dodd and his comrade-in-filibuster Joe Biden concede that Mr. Bolton's final testimony to Congress on Syria's WMD was accurate and cleared with the State Department. But they claim that he was too aggressive in early drafts of his statements, and they want to see the names of fellow U.S. officials whose communications were secretly picked up by a U.S. spy agency. Those names have already been seen, as is the normal practice, by the ranking Senators on the Intelligence Committee, who claim they show nothing of import.
As it happens, Messrs. Dodd and Biden both voted in favor of the 2003 Syrian Accountability Act. That law explicitly cites an unclassified CIA report that Syria "already holds a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin but apparently is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. . . ." The law also notes that "Syria also is developing an offensive [biological weapons] capability." We guess this means our Democratic friends are also guilty of overstating the evidence on Syria.
-----
By now it should be clear to anyone who has followed this nomination that the fight here isn't over Mr. Bolton's record, his temperament or his reading of the intelligence. Rather, it is a policy dispute in which a majority of Democrats, as well as a few Republicans, have chosen to hijack the nomination process to score some points against President Bush's foreign policy. In the case of Syria, they owe both Mr. Bolton and Mr. Bush an apology. Americans need to understand the threat Syria poses to our troops in Iraq and to our allies in the region. That understanding isn't helped when Senators put their partisan animus ahead of the national interest.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
Chrenkoff's Good News from Afghanistan
Here is Chrenkoff's monthly compilation of good news from Afghanistan.
June 08, 2005
[grocery] STORE WARS
Join Cuke Skywalker, Ham Solo, and Chewbroccoli in the Organic Rebellion! Battle the Dark side of the Farm in your local grocery store!
Go now to see Store Wars!
(Wideband recommended, but it's probably worth the long download time on dial up.)
Jack Kelly Interview
John Hawkins, over at Right Wing News, has posted an interview with Jack Kelly. Here's how it starts:
I was pleased to get an opportunity to do a phone interview with sydicated columnist Jack Kelly. Mr. Kelly is former Marine, Former Green Beret, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration.
We discussed a number of topics including Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Israel, China, chickenhawks, the cycle of violence, the MSM's hostility to the military, the future of the MSM & blogging.
It's an interesting interview and a good read.
Friedman quotes
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has posted some quotes from economist Milton and Rose Friedmans' book, Free to Choose.
Here is the link to the post, and here is one excerpt:
"The key insight of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can only gain at the expense of another."
There is definitely some thinking required when reading Friedman's stuff.
June 07, 2005
Get a clue!
I really, really hope that this is NOT true.
Excerpt:
"Real Men Moisturize." So begins an article on "Sharp Dressed Men" that appeared in a State Department funded magazine aimed at youth in the Arab world. The magazine, called "Hi" is published in Arabic and English. A State Department website explains that Hi is published "with the hope of building bridges of greater understanding among our cultures."
Exclusivity vs. Racism
The LA Times (online) has published a commentary by Bill Stamps, a retired probation officer. He describes dual graduation ceremonies (of which I was unaware) for minority students. African Americans had their own graduation ceremony, as did Latinos in a separate one, then the following day the graduation ceremony for everyone was held. Thus, African Americans and Latinos each went through two graduations.
It's a concept that I do not agree with. Neither does Mr. Stamps, and he does a much better job of explaining why than I could have, so go read his commentary.
June 06, 2005
D-Day, 6 June 1944
Sixty-one years ago today, some 154,000 Allied soldiers invaded German-occupied France at Normandy in the largest amphibious operation in history. Many died, many more were wounded. All were fighting to liberate Europe from the oppresive rule of the Third Reich.
73,000 of those soldiers were Americans. They were fighting for the freedom of the peoples of other nations.
D-Day Normandy to Americans is a legacy of our nation fighting for the freedom of other nations. We did it previously in World War I, and have done it since then in places like Korea and Vietnam. Now we are fighting for the freedom of the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our current conflict is no different from those in the past. We are doing what Americans do -- what our heritage has always demanded. We are fighting for what we believe is the God-given right of all people.
The right to freedom.
Michael Yon in Yezdinar Village, Iraq
Michael Yon was in Kurdish Iraq and took advantage being there by talking to some of the local people. This post details his experiences there.
He also asked some pointed questions of one of his hosts there. And got answers.
An Iraqi. A Kurd. A Yezidi. A village Headman. Whatever the label, more than forty years after his birth, this man came home. Only now, after the latest war, does Mr. Qatou finally have confidence in the peace, after more than a half century of life lived under orders or under sentence.
This seemed like the moment to ask the question, "What do you think of the United States?"
"We cry when America loses one soldier. We pray for the soldiers every night."
Many Kurds had expressed the same sentiment. One had said poetically: "For every drop of American blood, we shed one thousand Kurdish tears."
"What do you think about the United Kingdom?" I asked.
"Also very good."
His answer for some of the other countries, those that abandoned his people to get back to their beer and wine, was merely a quick frown followed by silence.
This post, along with the accompanying photographs, is worth a good look.
Michael Yon's reporting is straight from Iraq, is presented by a journalist unaffiliated with any news outlet, and is given without an agenda -- other than reporting the truth. His is a good blog to follow.
It's quite refreshing actually . . .
Heh
An interesting article citing a recent Gallup poll was published on DefenseLINK News this past Friday.
It's in the extended entry (emphasis added). . .
Military Tops Public Confidence List in New Gallup Poll
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 3, 2005 – The American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution, according to a Gallup poll released this week.
Seventy-four percent of those surveyed in Gallup's 2005 confidence poll said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military - more than in a full range of other government, religious, economic, medical, business and news organizations.
The poll, conducted between May 23 and 26, involved telephone interviews with a randomly selected sample of 1,004 people 18 and older, Gallup officials said. Those surveyed expressed strong confidence in the military, with 42 percent expressing "a great deal" of confidence in the military and 32 percent, "quite a lot" of confidence. Eighteen percent said they have "some" confidence, 7 percent, "very little," and 1 percent, "none."
Public confidence in the military jumped following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has remained consistently high, Gallup officials noted. The 2002 survey reflected a 13 percent increase in confidence in the military over the previous year's poll. The public expressed a 79 percent high-confidence rate in the military in 2002, an 82 percent rate in 2003, and a 75 percent rate in 2004.
This year's 74 percent confidence level exceeded that of all 15 institutions included in the 2005 survey. Police ranked second, with 63 percent of responders expressing "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in them. Organized religion rated third, with 53 percent of responders expressing high confidence, and banks rated a 49 percent high-confidence rate.
Health maintenance organizations bottomed out the list, with just 17 percent of responders expressing high confidence in them. Big business and Congress tied for the second- and third-lowest rankings, with 22 percent of responders expressing "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in them.
The Gallup organization noted that public trust in television news and newspapers reached an all-time low this year, with 28 percent of responders expressing high confidence in them.
Alternative routes to teaching
The Washington Times published an article on 3 June about the surprising (to some) success that teacher certification through "alternative routes" (other than the traditional four-year teacher collegiate program) have had.
Alternative certification programs were borne out of necessity, and were criticized by the National Education Association and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Results, however, are encouraging, according to president and chief executive officer of the federally funded National Center for Alternative Certification:
But those warnings turned out to be wrong, Mrs. Feistritzer said, and alternative-licensed teachers have proved to be among the most competent. Today, 140 teacher colleges offer alternate route programs, said Arthur E. Wise, president of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
And the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Arthur E. Wise, agrees.
Betsy Newmark, an educator who has a blog here also agrees, and goes on to say:
This is all to the good. I think that new teachers can learn all they need from education classes in one summer seminar that would cover topics such as lesson planning, classroom discipline, and grading methods. The rest comes from experience and learning from teachers in action. There was so much that was totally worthless in all the education courses I had to take in order to get certified. I know that almost every certified teacher I've talked to feels the same way. One of the many blessings of working at a charter school is that we have much more leeway in hiring teachers who have knowledge of the subject matter, although no teacher certification. Once they're hired, they can take a few courses and get certified through alternative routes. As states face more and more teacher shortages, the strangehold grip that education schools have had on teacher hiring will be loosened. And the more teachers who come to teaching through alternate routes and succeed the less necessary education school training will seem. Bravo.
I think that it is important for teachers to be well-grounded in the subjects they teach, but it is equally important for them to be able to successfully convey that knowledge to their students. These alternative routes seem to be ensuring that both conditions are true. However, I'm a bit nervous that the increasing reliance on alternative routes will also enable a lot of unqualified individuals into our childrens' classrooms. Let's hope that adequate safeguards are in place.
June 05, 2005
Let's get over it . . .
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent opinion piece about the silliness surrounding the allegations of Koran mistreatment going on at Gitmo. Here's a taste:
Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.
You should check out the rest.
10 steps to a good immigration policy
Probably my biggest difference with President Bush is how he is handling immigration. Frankly, I don't think he is really doing very much at all in curbing illegal immigration or in sealing our borders to terrorists or druggies.
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, has an excellent op-ed about what it will take to put together a solid immigration policy in the United States. Here's how he starts:
The next presidential election may be years away, but potential candidates are already staking out positions on issues that should figure prominently. One of these is certain to be immigration, and one likely candidate for 2008 is already working to develop a tough, pro-enforcement image.
Unfortunately, that candidate is Hillary Clinton.
And here's how he ends his article.
It would be a shame to have to get used to saying “President Clinton” again. Wouldn’t it?
Now, before you start thinking that his entire article is built around preventing Hillary from returning to the White House (doesn't just the thought of that make you shudder?), you should go read what he has written between the two quotes I have here. He has put together ten steps that, taken together, outline a pretty darn good immigration plan.
You really should read the rest. Mr. Krikorian has put a lot of thought into this, and it shows.
I just hope President Bush reads it, too . . .
June 04, 2005
America's Future Legacy
Dr. Demarche, at The Daily Demarche, does a good job of discussing Tom Friedman's 1 June op-ed in the New York Times. The good Dr. Demarche, speaking from his unique perspective as a Foreign Service Officer working abroad for our State Department, makes some sobering points about how the world perceives this country as it looks at our post-9/11 fortified (and foreboding) embassies.
It's a good read. And we need to take note of the warning Tom Friedman and Dr. Demarche are providing us. . .
June 03, 2005
Alternative training for dogs
Here's a tongue in cheek article posted over at The Onion. Just think about it.
MONTEREY, CA—Dogs who attend the Kylee Alternative Training Institute are exposed to a "creative canine learning environment where less emphasis is placed on obedience," director Morgan Kylee said Monday. "We believe in helping our students to discover their own potential, rather than forcing them to conform to the traditional idea of what a dog should be," Kylee said. "Dogs that mess on the carpet or bark incessantly are not scolded, but praised for finding their own parameters. Our motto is 'If it feels good, chew it.'" Classes at the school include Holistic Heeling, Elective Fetching, and Removing The Leg-Humping Stigma.
(h/t Joanne Jacobs)
Philanthropy and Conservatism
Here is an interesting, if somewhat lengthy article in OpinionJournal that addresses what many would like to ignore -- that the basic foundations of liberalism and conservatism share the same roots.
It is worth the read.
June 02, 2005
Fallujah reborn
Michael Fumento, a journalist embedded with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq has an article about Fallujah six months after the pitched battle between US and terrorist forces. The article provides an interesting contrast to the last real news we've heard from there late last year. Here's how it starts:Critics of the attack on Fallujah last November often invoked the damning (and mythical) utterance from Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village to save it.” Never mind that the alternative to the massive assault on the city backed by artillery, tanks, and aircraft would either be a huge loss of American lives or simply allowing the al Qaeda cut-throat Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to keep it as the terrorist headquarters. Forget that the city was already crumbling from the neglect of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Today Fallujah is on the mend and then some, a symbol of renewal and American-Iraqi cooperation.
It is well worth reading. . .
June 01, 2005
Avg. 40 days absent for the school year?!
Joanne Jacobs has a post about a model program in a Phliadelphia school. I just couldn't get past the percentage of absences . . .
TD students average 40 absent days a year versus 49 days off for non-TD students. Philadelphia's school year runs 188 days, so these kids are missing 21 to 26 percent of instructional time.
Stem-cell research and the Fed
Here is an article about stem-cell research, federal funding of same, and Bush's stand. Here's the opening paragraph:
The debate over stem-cell research is once again being portrayed as a kind of moral Armageddon: a choice between federal funding and none, between scientific progress and religious zealotry. We hate to spoil the political drama, but maybe the system has stumbled toward a compromise that is more sensible than the debate makes it appear.
You can find the rest in the extended entry . . .
A bipartisan bill that passed the House on Tuesday would lift restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2001 on federal financing for stem-cell research. Mr. Bush threatens to veto the bill--a first for his Presidency--saying it "would take us across a critical ethical line." But despite GOP defections and likely passage in the Senate, no one doubts that Mr. Bush has the votes to sustain a veto.
Recall what the President's August 2001 decision actually did. It allowed federal funding for research on existing stem-cell lines where, he said, "the life and death decision has already been made." But it forbade funding for research into new lines, which entailed both the creation and destruction of human embryos.
Critically, Mr. Bush's decision applied only to federal funding; it did not impinge on the rights of individual researchers, universities, hospitals, private labs, public corporations or states to conduct embryonic research. In other words, the President did not "ban" anything. He simply refused to allow taxpayer money to be spent on a practice millions of Americans consider morally offensive.
----
So what's happened, research-wise, since 2001? Given the rhetoric of some of the President's critics, you might think the answer is nothing. In fact, federal funding for all forms of stem-cell research (including adult and umbilical stem cells) has nearly doubled, to $566 million from $306 million. The federal government has also made 22 fully developed embryonic stem-cell lines available to researchers, although researchers complain of bureaucratic bottlenecks at the National Institutes of Health.
At the state level, Californians passed Proposition 71, which commits $3 billion over 10 years for stem-cell research. New Jersey is building a $380 million Stem Cell Institute. The Massachusetts Legislature has passed a bill authorizing stem-cell research by a veto-proof margin, and similar legislation is in the works in Connecticut and Wisconsin.
Then there's the private sector. According to Navigant Consulting, the U.S. stem-cell therapeutics market will generate revenues of $3.6 billion by 2015. Some 70 companies are now doing stem-cell research, with Geron, ES Cell International and Advanced Cell Technologies being leaders in embryonic research. Clinical trials using embryonic stem-cell technologies for spinal cord injuries are due to begin sometime next year.
True, many privately funded researchers complain about what they call Mr. Bush's "antiquated stem-cell policy." But we have yet to meet the CEO or entrepreneur who doesn't bridle at government restrictions, or who wouldn't welcome more in government subsidies under the heading of "basic research."
These companies are still raising private equity on the capital markets, and CFO David Greenwood tells us that Geron has been developing its own stem-cell lines, a process he says has only gotten cheaper as they get better at it. "When Bush made those comments in 2001 we applauded," he says. "We thought at the time, 'hey, this is a victory.' There was a minimum sufficiency of material to get the ball rolling."
All of which is to say that if embryonic stem-cell researchers can get this far within the regime Mr. Bush imposed in 2001, then surely they can go further without additional federal help. The same goes for the $79 million the President and his allies in Congress are proposing to spend on umbilical cord stem-cell research. Here, too, the government is spending tax dollars to subsidize a private sector that already has every incentive to invest.
----
Which brings us to the political compromise we mentioned above. The Bush policy doesn't ban stem-cell research; it merely says that taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the destruction of embryos that they consider to be human life. This is a contentious moral issue, and many would draw a line differently than Mr. Bush has.
For our part, we don't see any great moral difference from doing time-limited research on unused embryos created for in-vitro fertilization, as opposed to letting those in-vitro embryos be destroyed. (We recommend James Q. Wilson's statement as part of Mr. Bush's bioethics commission for some important moral distinctions.) But we're glad Mr. Bush is at least drawing a line somewhere. His critics often sound as if the promise of scientific progress raises no ethical questions and is itself a kind of moral trump card. Millions of Americans also want to draw a line, and that includes not being forced to pay for destroying human embryos.
This is similar to the compromise that Congress has struck on abortion ever since the Hyde Amendment first passed in the wake of Roe v. Wade: Abortion may be legal, but we don't force taxpayers to subsidize it. That's the compromise Mr. Bush essentially struck on stem cells in 2001, and it is a reasonable balance.
[Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.]
And they call these monsters "freedom fighters"?
Recently, an insurgent hid behind a child in order to attack Americans. The tactic came as no surprise to the soldiers here. Terrorists routinely play wounded or feign their surrender in order to get close enough to launch an attack on Coalition or Iraqi Forces. In January I wrote about one bomber who grabbed the hand of a small child while she was playing on a sidewalk. Smiling, he walked with the child in hand, approaching some Iraqi police, and exploded. Americans standing close by were unharmed.
The rest of the post is here.
